What do you think of Nuclear Energy? Are there other options

I love the idea of using more wind power to use for electricity and building wind turbines. It's clean and efficient. However, is there a possibility to design a wind turbine that can generate the power output that is at least 1/4 of what a nuclear power plant can do? This would be efficient so we wouldn't have to place so many in an area. Another thing people can do is to conserve energy and switch to more energy saving eletronics and appliances. We could also have a solar power plant even though they are quite costly compared to wind turbines. Still, its better than using bloody nuclear power all the time!

“Nuclear energy does not yield net energy. The amount of energy necessary to mine and process the uranium and transport it to and from the nuclear plant, plus all the other energy expenditures necessary to run the plant and personnel exceeds the amount of energy produced.” Not to forget the resources needed to build said plant! That being said I find it hard to believe that the ELECTRICAL energy produced by a nuclear plant over its life does not exceed the ELECTRICAL energy it takes to produce it. No energy is free we are just changing one form of energy into another, it is true that wind, water and solar may be considered as free in the sense that the energy already exists but means of converting it is relatively expensive (capital cost) at this time. “There is no way to dispose of the waste in an environmentally responsible manner.” This is true and the one big problem with nuclear but I don’t see any other VIABLE short term (next 20years) alternatives given our greed for electricity. ”Wind power generation is a good regenerative energy source. Electricity can be dumped onto the net or stored in batteries or used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen which can be stored for later use.” Yes hydrogen fuel cells are showing some promise but we have a ways to go on that one and battery storage is sill VERY limited even with the most high tech (and expensive) batteries. Neither storage method is suitable for large scale storage (ie. Storing output from a wind farm supplying 100s or 1000s of customers). Here in SW Ontario several wind farms are being proposed with one small one up and running (interestingly right alongside a nuclear generating plant), the problem that seem to be emerging is VISUAL pollution. Whilst this is something that we may have to live with in the future considering some of the alternatives, you can be sure that there will be much local opposition to large wind farm installations in some areas of natural beauty as well as objections from those who will be forced to look at these very large (aprox 300ft) towers. Unfortunately some of the days when we require the most hydro (ie. Hot, humid, still days when AC units are working overtime) these wind powered generators will be not operating and therefore other more reliable sources must be used. This is not to say that they cannot help with the supply but they will always be but a small percentage for that reason. ”Geothermal is a good source of heat for heating your house or water, I don't think large scale power generation is a good idea though.” So far as I know even geothermal heating (or cooling as in heat pumps) in most cases USES hydro to transfer said energy, the gain is of course that this system produces more energy than it uses (ie. Uses less hydro than it would take to directly heat or cool by normal means). I note here that Toronto has, I believe, installed a cold water pumping system taking water from the lake and circulating it around several large office towers in place of conventional AC. This is a form of geothermal energy conversion that has some limited potential to save hydro. ”Solar energy is a good source of electricity for regions that receive a lot of sunlight.” True, but unfortunately has the same drawbacks as wind in that it is not available at all times, also for large scale installations that would provide sufficient power to supply a number of homes would require many acres of land to be over shadowed. Some potential here (in my view) for small scale installations on the roofs of industrial, commercial and apartment buildings to HELP add to our supply. The roofs after all are not being used for anything else and the cells are relatively light weight. ”Tidal power is controversial because of the effects it might generate.” I still think this has some potential but don’t know enough about the problems to comment. Any one know what happened to the Bay of Fundy Tidal generation project? ”Temperature differential power generation is also a potential winner. A mile long pipe is stood up in the ocean. The water at the surface is hotter than the water at the pipe bottom. The hot and cold water are attracted to each other and the waters rushing together can be made to turn a turbine and generate electricity.” This one no doubt works in theory but I suspect it will never come to fruition on a commercial basis. ”All methods of electricity production have pros and cons. Nuclear power production is a neo-con pipe dream.” Sorry to say it again but at this point I see no other practical alternative EXCEPT the big one that has not been mentioned and is the reason that Quebec is a net exporter of power. HYDRO ELECTRIC. Water power is in my view the only clean means of producing large volumes of electricity using currently available technology. The James Bay project was not without its problems relating to the diversion of rivers, flooding of lands etc. ect. But it does provide an enormous amount of hydro with minimal long term pollution or supply costs. Like all other forms of energy conversion the capital cost was correspondingly enormous, another drawback is that most potential sites are a long way from the biggest users (cities).But consider the potential power in all that floodwater recently inundating communities in Manitoba and Alberta. Harness that and you have all the hydro you need! "Another thing people can do is to conserve energy and switch to more energy saving eletronics and appliances." Yes, and we must do so, in Ontario there is a move to gradualy raise the cost of hydo to more truly reflect the cost of producing it and to also eventualy have "time of day" metering so that hydro will cost more at peak times and less at off times. 30 odd years ago in England hydro was sold cheaper at night for heating (storage) units. Seems like we have only just realized that there has to be an incentive to change our (bad?) habits. And that’s my view as a Licensed Industrial electrician for over 35 years who has been watching and waiting for that “big breakthrough” for most of those years and is still waiting.

So, with an individual home. It is possible to use a windmill and solar and not need anything else? I saw this on the news (2nd Story, "Off The Grid") on a company Wind2Power that is making a small, quiet and affordable windmill that attaches to the roof or side of your house. They don't have a website yet. <a href="http://www.thenewvr.ca/wrightonyourside/index.asp?offset=0">here</a> It seems relatively easy to make your own solar panels. I'm wondering why more people don't do this. Is it reliable for a single home? Also, has anyone heard of Nikola Tesla and his research into free energy? It just seems odd that he was working on free energy back in the 1800's and nothing much has come of it in all these years. <a href="http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/tesla.html">tesla page</a> And thanks for all the input everyone.

“So, with an individual home. It is possible to use a windmill and solar and not need anything else?” Yes, quite a number of isolated homeowners are doing so, BUT it takes a change in lifestyle being very aware of the use of each power using item AND a battery storage bank that requires some regular maintenance. There is lots of info on this available with a quick search so I wont go into it here. ”I saw this on the news (2nd Story, "Off The Grid") on a company Wind2Power that is making a small, quiet and affordable windmill that attaches to the roof or side of your house.” You get what you pay for, look at the output of the unit (in watts) to compare. “ It seems relatively easy to make your own solar panels.” Don’t know about that, it may be easy to ASEMBLE some panels but they are still quite expensive and require a control panel to charge your batteries (which is all they are capable of doing, they will not run anything directly.) and to convert the battery power to 110volt ”I'm wondering why more people don't do this. Is it reliable for a single home?” See comments above re lifestyle! Also high initial cost.

Great discussion, I'm jumping in very late. What I see lacking in the overall global issue is the concept of energy storage. There's no doubt we have tremendous sources of energy which are non-nuclear, but one of the most inefficient aspects of how to benefit from such energy sources is how to store the energy. I have yet to find the popular science article of 20 years or so ago where they took a Ford Granada and put an air compressor tank in the trunk to store energy generated from air braking. They had the engine actually connected to an air pump that ran the car. Well in the end the car got about 10 more miles per gallon. I have read about France? I think storing compressed air in the ground as a means to store energy. There must be other efficient energy storage concepts afoot, but for their obvious ability to cut into energy profit making, they aren't being pushed forward. The fact that we're not an uninhabitable planet is because earth stores energy from the sun. When the human being figures out how to master that technology, I think we'll have gone a long way to cracking the energy problem.

Nuclear power produces the waste that makes the project so despised, however, if you check you'll find that there is increasing science that is finding use for the radioactive waste. It's been awhile since we discussed this thread but you can find more info way back yonder. I read a fairly objective analysis of nuclear and found that it doesn't take nearly as much energy to mine the product as is claimed, somebody can quote a figure, or take my word for it since I am no fan of nuclear power (but I try not to use bad information to dismiss an opposing argument). For wind power there are two separate issues because the large industrial installations such as in PEI are so large (the windmill I mean) that the blades don't need to spin fast. A study done by natural resources found eight birds in two years had died and they couldn't even prove that they had collided with the windmill. Homeowners will know that birds, particularly young ones, will fly right into all kinds of things while learning to fly. However, small windmills for homes do tend to spin fairly rapidly so that's where that trouble lay. We are moving to northern ontario in about three years and buying a farm and going granola as much as possible so I've been researching this stuff as well. Mother Earth News is a good source of info. There are tons of things that can be done to radically cut back on power. Nobody here has mentioned passive solar, which is EXTREMELY important when building a new house. Building facing south with 60% windows on that side and I believe it was 10% on opposing sides (definitely research those numbers) will cut power bills dramatically. Growing vines on the sides and top of your home will add extra insulation and planting wind barriers like cedar hedges 20 feet in front of the home works wonders as well. Wind is the main problem in winter. Storageless water heaters are also getting cheap, I know the japanese have small 'tanks' connected by pipes on grids on the roof which is heated through solar and provides constant water. Water heaters are real energy pigs, so when building a home I'm definitely looking into having a tankless water heater. Insulating the hell out of the house is also at the top of the list. We're thinking about strawbale not so much for the environmental aspect but also for the extremely high R-Value of it as insulation. I researched geo-thermal as well, it's easy enough to do, dig a trench under the foundation and run a pipe through and connect it to an air pump is all there is to it, but that only regulates temperature, not provide power. The one thing I'd heard about this at the industrial level is that seven years ago for some reason they banned it in Toronto, I remember David Suzuki giving a speech on it. The other thing not mentioned here is the political angle. It is easy enough to build a home providing it's own power and energy, but then there'd be no market. No doubt that's yet another reason the govenrment wants us all urbanized since on a farm or in a village it would be extremely cost effective to be self sufficient and not need the government or industry at all-just ask the mennonites! Another insulated home is the hobbit hole, I've seen many examples of these springing up. They simply use the earth on three sides and top to provide the insulation. I've seen some beautiful ones, but it's usually people with money doing things like this.

Thanks everyone for adding more input. Marcarc, I agree Mother Earth News is a wealth of information. What's even better you can read virtually every magazine they ever printed right on line. I have stacks of them printed out. I'll have to look into geo-thermal. Haven't got that far yet. Have you read about rammed earth housing? I think that's what we will be trying. Not too sure yet. It all seems overwhelming (the learning part) part we're excited about going this route. Good luck to you and your wife! Looks like we'll both be leaving "the rat race' and becoming self-sufficient around the same time. I know it will be far from easy, but what the heck, you only live once.

WOW!! Am I glad you directed me to Mother Earth News. I once pasted up (was I about 20 at the time) a life time subscription for something like $600?? I haven't thrown out one issue yet. Still very relevant today. I did come across one magazine, an article I knew I had read, which sheds some light on windpower. This is Nov 04 Popular Science...not too old. Key excerpts: 1. Ireland's Arklow Bank is Ireland's first offshore wind energy project and Europe's 19th, with a least 10 more slated for completion in 2005. 2. The US has you guessed it, zero. But, wind farms in 30 states do currently produce 1% of the nation's total electricity demand. The US department of energy says there's actually enough harvestable wind to power the entire country. Overall goal is to provide 100 GW (or about 10% of projected national capacity) by 2020. 3. "The real limit to wind power expansion isn't output, it's the proximity to the power grid, experts say. Countless remote locations that possess good wind lie far off grid, leaving wind farm developers, goverments and utility companies to squabble over who will pick up the tab to string a high voltage connection to civilization." Right now nothing is being built in the US while companies await the renewal of the federal Production Tax Credit, which provides keky incentives to green power developers. It expired last year, and if Congress renews this fall, projects in various states totaling at least 2000 MW will break ground. 4. Offshore, there's no limit to what could be set up once developers devise A STABLE ECONOMICAL DEEP WATER PLATFORM - possibly tethered to the ocean bottom - that could be placed far out to sea, where people won't complain and where 900 GIGAWATTS(!!!!!) OF POWER BEGS TO BE HARVESTED. A workable system is estimated to be about a decade away. Tranferring energy to shore is costly, but "the technologies doable".

I'm looking for any information that might be out there on tidal power, if anybody knows any good links or articles let me know.

Hm, I had once read of a wind turbine that would situated up in the atmoshpere, where the turbulence there would turn the turbine's generator. Anyone have a clue what this machine is even called?

Nclear power plants built today should last much longer than earlier plants....other than hydro-dams and coal, there are no other feasible sources. Without a national energy grid, we need nuclear power and we might anyway. Nuclear power was only so expensive in Ontario (as was noted in the paper and on the net) because of the INTEREST paid on the 2-3 billion which made it cost 14 billion. <a href="http://www.comer.org ">here</a>should explain how to make nuclear plants affordable. CANDU reactors despite some criticism are leading edge, and a new version has been developed. This will create Canadian jobs, deomstrate our technical ability and help us recoup some of our 17 billion (IRRC) investment we spent developing the things originally.

There are TONS of feasible sources for a vast majority of canadian energy needs. The only place that maybe they cannot be used in the short term is in extremely large urban areas. However, 'feasible' is a shaky term, so long as you admit that certain things can never be (investments in alternate sources, loan guarantees, co-ops) then I would agree. If you look at every single residence now, you could easily convert a home to solar, geo-thermal, wind and water power. Most homes in Canada are extremely inefficient and require enormous amounts of energy to maintain at 'comfort levels'. The trouble is the cost, which is where the 'feasible' comes in. With current subsidized costs, it would take approximately 13 years to get the return on investment between updating and adapting a home to alternate energy sources. In 13 years the system would need to be updated again, which would make around 20 years closer to what it would cost, so long as you accept that current power prices remain static. That's far from the case, while it gets more expensive, alternate sources get cheaper. So I would put it closer to 15 years barring some big energy crisis. The problem is that it is all up front cost. I pay one low power rate right now, which is far different than having to spring for 30-40 grand. However, if there were actual incentives, or even loan guarantees, suddenly feasible doesn't seem that far off the mark. We would do more now but are moving in three years, and our house is going to be built off the grid. This is especially easy to do when building a house, unfortunately canada's housing developers put things up as cheap as possible. In the states they are very different and most states have some sort of incentive program. In case you missed it, tonight on the news the interesting fact that while the US refused to sign Kyoto they have still decreased emissions by 45%, while Canada's has increased by 2%. No bragging rights there for us.

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] There are TONS of feasible sources for a vast majority of canadian energy needs. The only place that maybe they cannot be used in the short term is in extremely large urban areas. However, 'feasible' is a shaky term, so long as you admit that certain things can never be (investments in alternate sources, loan guarantees, co-ops) then I would agree. If you look at every single residence now, you could easily convert a home to solar, geo-thermal, wind and water power. Most homes in Canada are extremely inefficient and require enormous amounts of energy to maintain at 'comfort levels'. The trouble is the cost, which is where the 'feasible' comes in. With current subsidized costs, it would take approximately 13 years to get the return on investment between updating and adapting a home to alternate energy sources. In 13 years the system would need to be updated again, which would make around 20 years closer to what it would cost, so long as you accept that current power prices remain static. That's far from the case, while it gets more expensive, alternate sources get cheaper. So I would put it closer to 15 years barring some big energy crisis. The problem is that it is all up front cost. I pay one low power rate right now, which is far different than having to spring for 30-40 grand. However, if there were actual incentives, or even loan guarantees, suddenly feasible doesn't seem that far off the mark. We would do more now but are moving in three years, and our house is going to be built off the grid. This is especially easy to do when building a house, unfortunately canada's housing developers put things up as cheap as possible. In the states they are very different and most states have some sort of incentive program. In case you missed it, tonight on the news the interesting fact that while the US refused to sign Kyoto they have still decreased emissions by 45%, while Canada's has increased by 2%. No bragging rights there for us.[/QUOTE] It is true Marcarc that homes ARE inefficient. This being said, the problem is that homes that are sealed tightly are more efficient but less healthy for humans--they trap more indoor toxins, etc... Also, solar, wind, geo-thermal etc.... are intermittent power sources that would only provide about 10% of Ontario's power--much of Ontario's needs are industry, the Toornto Subway and so forth. To keep things affordable and reliabe for consumers and industry, a CONSTANT, LARGE amount of energy is required as power cannot be stored--power that isn't used simply evaporates. Without new nuclear in Ontario, we will lose our auto industry due to high energy costs as the millions in extra electricity will squeeze companies like GM which are already struggling. This may seem like a cop out for business but Canada really gets a lot of jobs from the (albeit foreign-owned) auto industry. It the rest of the country wants tranfer payments they had better support new nukes for Ontario.

Fundy tidal power gets fresh look New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have opted into a big new study on tidal power that could see underwater turbines generating electricity in the Bay of Fundy and in waters off five American states. Tidal power has long been talked about in the Fundy region, which boasts of having the highest tides in the world, but new technology means it's now getting a fresh look. A California company called the Electric Power Research Institute has pooled money from seven state and provincial governments to launch the latest $425,000 US study. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are each contributing $60,000 US. Oceanographer George Hagerman has scouted potential locations, including the Bay of Fundy. Now it's time to find a durable underwater turbine. "A commercial project, in order for the capital project to pay for itself, it has to survive 20 or 30 years," Hagerman said in a corporate video touting the study. "It has to produce well, and produce high reliability." Hagerman says the researchers are talking to eight companies about "in-stream" generators that will come on the market over the next couple of years. Maine is considering a plan to put a test generator at a site in the Lubec area. Bob Judd, a retired energy planner and longtime fan of tidal power, lives nearby. He pushed researchers to consider that area. "It simply is a resource that our area sits on, much like Saudi Arabia sits on its oil," he said. Daniel Leblanc of the Atlantic Canada Energy Coalition is also anxious for the study to proceed. "It does have the potential of replacing most of our energy needs in society," he said. "In fact, the Atlantic region could be a very important exporter of this energy." It could be five years before a turbine is actually in the water. The Nova Scotia government says they would be similar to wind turbines in structure, but would be located underwater and wouldn't be visible from shore. There are currently three tidal power generators in operation in the world. The world's largest tidal power project, the La Rance station built in France in the 1960s, generates 240 megawatts, enough energy to provide energy to about 200,000 homes. <a href="http://nb.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=nb_tidepower20051018&ref=rss">continued</a>

[QUOTE]It the rest of the country wants tranfer payments they had better support new nukes for Ontario[/QUOTE] Gosh, threats now, and we wonder why Canada has a hard time being united.